From the Mouth of Kenneth Altshuler Esq - Frat Boy Support of Judge Moskowitz - WGAN 560

WGAN AM 560/ FM 105.5 Ken & Mike's First Take. The hosts Kenneth Altshuler and Mike Violette talk about the unanimous vote for reappointment of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz. We present the transcript of the banter between the two radio hosts. Crass? Ignorant? Tasteless? You be the judge.


Mike: Ya Boy!

Ken: Victory

Mike: Ya Boy! District Court Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz overcoming a courtroom controversy and heavy criticism but of course getting bolstered by the testimony of Kenneth P Althsuler Esq.

Ken: I don't think I put it over the top

Mike: I think you cinched if for him. Unanimous vote of approval Tuesday he's going to be back on the bench. Good for the judge..

Ken: So let me.. So let me take this moment ti also say that these people who complain. First of all three lawyers. Oh four lawyers came out against him

Mike: Uhh.. Mathew Nichols awww..

Ken: Seth Berner was one.

Mike: Darrick Banda and William Bly

Ken: Yeah and I don't know the last two. And look I'm fine with lawyers

Mike: They must be ambulance chasers huh?

Ken: And by the way let me make it really clear there have been judges..

Mike: These are the kind of guys who hang out at the emergency room at the hospital waiting for clients?

Ken: That.. That I have been opposed to and I have sent letters to the Judiciary Committee saying this judge is a bad judge. Don't reappoint this judge. One judge I opposed didn't get the reappointment. Not because of me but because everyone hated him.

You know this was.. You know once again being a judge is not a popularity contest.

Mike: Nope

Ken: And if you're popular you are probably a lousy judge. This judge is one of the best two or three judges in the state - SHUT UP!

Mike: Aww you poor little dears... You lost your case...

Ken: The people with the GALalert - which is a organization against Guardian ad litems.

Mike: Yeah

Ken: and who said that the public is not involved enough in the selection process of judges that’s why we don't have elected judges. Because we have crappy judges when that happens. Go down to Alabama. You know what happens when you have elected judges? All of the lawyers donate to both campaigns.

Mike: Yeah. Look I'm an advocate for electing the attorney general and the secretary of state but we can't be electing every judge.

Ken: Exactly right.....


WGAN First Take - skip ahead to 10m53s for segment 5 dealing with Judge Moskowitz.


MeGAL is working to right the so many wrongs that we find in our Family Courts and Guardians ad litem unlike Kenneth Altshuler Esq. We feel the 26% (Kenneth Altshuler and other lawyers associated with the Divorce Industry) has taken advantage of the majority long enough. We encourage you to contact us with your story or look us up on Facebook.

2015-05-14 BDN Maine Senate puts off vote on judge who issued gag order on press

Maine Senate
2015-05-14 Me Senate 2-1 Confirm Of Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz - Sen Burns to Table

2015-05-13 Transcript of the First Take segment on the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

Was the Public Bamboozled by the Power Players on Reappointment of Judge Moskowitz?

The Maine Bar Association scored a cruel triumph over the people who use the Moskowitz court. From start to finish the Moskowitz re-appointment was about the "power players" in the Maine Bar.  These "powers" use this court to further their interests, and they wish to have no interference from public users and 'pro se' in the Moskowitz court. To that end, Bar special interests moved strategically to silence, intimidate and discredit public opponents. Josh Tardy was a superb lobbyist with enviable skills in selling damaged goods to naive buyers on the committee. The Governor and others, once again, have bought yet another unfortunate Tardy "product".

What is sad to report is the behavioral message from the Judiciary Committee as it has abandoned the public: "Three cheers for the Maine bar!"

MeGAL is working for Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. If you have had issues we ask that you please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Further reading can be found:

2015-05-12 PPH Members of the Judiciary Committee vote unanimously to recommend to the full Senate that Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz be reappointed.
2015-05-12 BDN Committee endorses reappointment of Maine judge who issued gag order

2015-05-10 Questions that we hope the Judiciary Committee will ask Judge Moskowitz

2015-05-12 JCH - Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz - Confirmation Hearing

Questions that we hope the Judiciary Committee will ask Judge Moskowitz

Senator Dutremble

Dear Senator Dutremble:

Regarding the re-appointment of Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz

As supporters and constituents we are asking you to forward this questionnaire to the Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature.

Many people watching and listening to the Judge Moskowitz re-appointment hearings on Thursday, May 7th, were amazed that members of the Judiciary Committee asked no questions of Judge Moskowitz. Reporter, Scott Dolan noticed the fact of no questions from the committee too in his story. Probably most Judiciary Committee members had never appeared in the Moskowitz court, many may have never appeared in any court, so the absence of questions from the committee may have been based on a lack of personal experience.

Because of widespread concern that Judiciary Committee members can't fully exercise their constitutional responsibility without an interrogation of any Judge that digs into questions of critical interest to the public, and because the public has been largely shut out of the re-appointment process and intimidated by Mr Tardy in an earlier hearing, we offer the following questions for Judge Moskowitz to members of the Judiciary Committee, our elected representatives. We hope they will speak for us. We don't think they can make a grounded, intelligent, thoughtful decision without answers to these questions:

Best Interest of the Child

1. What does the Best Interest of the Child standard mean to you?

2. With regards to the Best Interest of the Child should a higher evidentiary standard be applied to fit parents?

3. Should the Best Interest of the Child standard be used where termination of parental rights has already taken place?

4. Tell us about a time when you applied the Best Interest of the Child standard to arrive at a decision even though personally, you may not have agreed with the outcome. -or- Tell us about a time when you personally felt that deviating from the Best Interest of the Child standard was appropriate. What was your thought process?

Parents

1. How does a divorcing parent on supervised visits achieve unsupervised visits?

2. You said that mistakes give one the opportunity to improve — how do you give that opportunity to parents in your family court matters that you deem have made “mistakes” serious enough to put them on supervised visits?

3. How does a divorcing parent on supervised visits achieve unsupervised visits?

4. Do parents in family matters in your court room have at least the same as parents in child protection matters?
5. Do you view family matters as a zero sum game with one parent as the winner and one as the loser?

  

Process

1. Describe a time when you were faced with an ethical dilemma. How did you handle that situation?
2. Without mentioning names, tell us about a difficult family matter decision you have had to make? What was it, what options did you consider, and what was the outcome?
3. What is the typical way you handle conflict in the courtroom?
4. When a decision of yours is successfully appealed, what action if any, do you take to learn from that decision?
5. Describe a time when you became frustrated at a pro se litigant. How did you handle that situation?
6. What words would you use to describe your demeanor in the courtroom?
7. Do you make decisions before hearing the case?

8. Do you use the rules of evidence to arbitrarily exclude evidence you don't want to hear?

9. Do you use the rules of evidence to arbitrarily exclude evidence that doesn’t support the party you favor?
10. Have you ever changed an order without a hearing?
11. When the day's testimony is over and you go back into your chambers to consider the case, what is your process for reviewing the day's information? Do you have a system? Checklist?
12. Are there times when you do not actually need a process after a hearing because you've been processing and making decisions in an ongoing way throughout the proceedings?
13. Do you have a minimum amount of time you require of yourself for review?
14. Because of the caseload you face, how much pressure do you feel to make decisions more quickly than you'd like?

15. If you find yourself becoming annoyed/agitated/angry/frustrated, what steps do you take to calm yourself and stay impartial? Do you have a/what is your method for doing this? Do you ever take a recess to compose yourself?

16. How do you keep your own personal ambitions/aspirations from interfering/influencing your decisions? i.e. What if a lawyer who could personally benefit you or your career is trying a case in your court?

17. Along those lines, under what conditions would you recuse yourself from hearing a case?
18. Please describe – with examples – how you view your discretionary powers. What does and doesn't fall under "broad discretion" for you?
19. How do you keep yourself from being more permissive or forgiving ... in any small way ... of a person representing him/herself when the other party has representation of a lawyer?
20. Under what circumstances would you change an order at the bequest of one party involved in a case without requiring another hearing?

21. Please offer a few examples of the kinds of behaviors or comments on the part of defendants or plaintiffs that would automatically prejudice you against them – in terms of considering their credibility or anything else?

22. Under what circumstances would you allow a child to testify in open court?

23. Please give us a sense of how frequently you feel confident and peaceful about the decisions you hand down?

24. How often do you look back on your decisions with regret? With self-doubts? And ... what do you do about it when this happens?

25. What words would you use to describe your demeanor in the courtroom? What do you do to maintain the demeanor you aspire to?
26. How do you determine when it's okay to exclude evidence?

27. What words would you use to describe your demeanor in the courtroom?

Guardian ad litem

1. When a Guardian ad litem is assigned to a divorce/ custody how do you provide oversight and management of this court officer?
2. Has a Guardian ad litem ever come to you to discuss a case ex parte?
3. (Three part question – please allow an answer to first before asking the second and third):
1. Have you ever incorporated a Guardian ad litem’s recommendations verbatim into your decision?
2. In doing so – have you not in fact given your authority over to a Guardian ad litem?
3. How do you know if the Guardian ad litem made a bias recommendation?

4. Please discuss how you apply the Rules for Guardians ad litem in your courtroom. Provide an example.
5. How do you handle attorneys and Guardians ad litem who are caught lying in the courtroom?
6. How do you ensure that a Guardian ad litem follow the GAL Rules?
7. What action have you taken against a Guardian ad litem who do not follow the GAL Rules?
8. What about a Guardian ad litem who take actions not authorized by the Rules?
9. Do you permit or exclude testimony about Guardian ad litem bias?
10. Do you permit or exclude testimony about Guardian ad litem misconduct?
11. Are you troubled by the perceived alliance between certain law firms and Guardians ad litem?
12. Are you interested in testimony that demonstrates a Guardian ad litem lied in the GAL report or is that “not relevant"?
13. Please describe your feelings about the current rules in place that govern Guardians ad litem. Are they comprehensive enough? Fair? Should they be changed?
14. How important is it to you that Guardians ad litem strictly follow GAL rules? Are there times when it's okay for them not to? If so, give a few examples of times when it would be okay to "bend the rules?"
15. How do you ensure that a Guardian ad litem follow the GAL Rules?
16. How do you know for sure if they have or haven't followed the rules?
17. What action have you he taken against a Guardian ad litem who does not follow the GAL Rules?
18. When would you permit or exclude testimony about a Guardian ad litem bias and/or misconduct?
19. Please describe your feelings about a perceived an alliance between certain law firms and Guardians ad litem?

20. When one parent or the Guardian ad litem accuses the other parent of abuse, do you think the opinion of the Department of Health and Human Services is relevant?

21. Are you interested in testimony that demonstrates a Guardian ad litem lied in the GAL report or is that “not relevant"?

MeGAL is working to bring about change to a badly broken Family Court and Guardian ad litem system. These questions came from concerned citizens and parents who have experienced this court. If you would like to find out more please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Audio testimony given may be found on our "Voice of the People" under the heading "Testimony Regarding the Re-Appointment of Hon. Jeffrey Moskowitz before the Judiciary Committee.

"All Judges Should Obey the Law, Like Anyone Else" US Associate Justice Elena Kagen

Must Maine Judges obey the law, "like anyone else"? It is a vital issue that must be decided by the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature as a result of this re-appointment hearing.

1.) WE OPPOSE THE RE-APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE JEFFREY MOSKOWITZ. We base our position on widespread reports from informants whom we know well, who have experienced in his court a repeated pattern of rudeness and disrespect, failure to follow the law, use of Guardians ad litem outside of their mandated functions and abuse of judicial discretion to operate by judicial whim. Please, be assured, we are not here to whine about a "bad custody decision"; we are concerned exclusively with a judge following the law, which we shall detail further on.

The family court system is destined to collapse from a loss of moral integrity, if its judges don't  follow the law themselves. And, remember Judge Moskowitz is a leader of judges in his position as Deputy Chief Judge.

2.) ATTACKING WITNESSES. Before addressing specific symptoms of the Moskowitz court that cry out for  a formal audit, before considering re-appointment, we would briefly like to strenuously object to the current public-unfriendly judicial re-appointment procedure. It leaves out people with actual experience before the judge at every step of the process. From the back room decisions between the Governor and his Judicial Selection Committee Chair, Joshua Tardy, to the opaque negotiations between various players for who gets listed for re-appointment, to the hearings before the Judiciary Committee when these re-appointment decisions have already been cast in concrete, the public is a decorative afterthought. Re-appointment is almost exclusively "private property" of the political leaders of the Maine Bar. Public stay out; public shut up. There is absolutely no room for meaningful opposition or other input from the public. This was made all too clear in the recent unprecedented attacks on witnesses, who testified before this legislative committee by Mr Tardy. Who in their right mind would risk public testimony and face such attacks from the Chair of the Judicial appointment/re-appointment committee? And for witnesses not to be allowed a chance to rebut  Mr Tardy's allegations by Chair, Senator Burns, was unfair and unnecessary.. THERE WERE POWERFUL REBUTTALS, firmly grounded in the truth and in facts. We can NEVER, in good conscience, encourage the public to bear witness about judges before Senator Burn's committee, without some understanding of the Committee chairman that they will be treated with normal respect and human dignity and that they will have some protection from future judicial caprice.

THE JUDICIAL VETTING PROCEDURE. The judicial vetting procedures for re-appointment seems based on a survey questionnaire sent out  to members of the bar to evaluate judges at 2 and 6 year intervals. This type of consumer survey is typically completed by motivated respondents and ignored by others. Though it has more pretentious claims, it is essentially a "popularity contest". Which judges do lawyers know and like? Which judges are "lawyer-friendly"? Though Tardy was unwilling to share the current survey with us, when asked, one wonders about the ratio of questionnaires mailed out to responses returned, the quality of responses, the number of "no responses". And the number and type of negative replies? These questions are vital is assessing the validity of the vetting survey instrument. Without a survey design that can address such questions, survey results are statistically meaningless razzle dazzle.

In the light of his much publicized role in the Great Northern Paper Company debacle, we feel that Mr Tardy was an unfortunate choice to lead the judicial re-appointment process. How can the judicial re-appointment process not be tainted by Mr Tardy's unfortunate marketing of the Great Northern Paper Company to the legislature - and its even more unfortunate aftermath for Maine taxpayers?  Ramming through a judicial re-appointment by using raw political force and power, while discrediting all public objections, does not inspire confidence. It is not a thoughtful, open, public  process for serious decisions about our courts. What kind of an outcome can the public expect from such a process?

3.) 74% 'PRO SE', AN INCONVENIENT FACT. We would remind you of a large but inconvenient fact. As far as family courts are concerned, the divorce bar is a minority group (26% of cases) that controls 99.9% of the re-appointment process from start to finish. Where are the majority 74% 'Pro se' in the re-appointment decision making process? Isn't something out of balance? This is a true blind spot in  Judicial Branch thinking, in the Governor's conceptualization of a judicial re-appointment committee. In fairness and in connection with the actual reality of today, it needs correction.

4.) VOICE OF THE PUBLIC: WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS ABOUT JUDGE MOSKOWITZ;
See Appendix for detailed quotes of various" voices of people" who have actually appeared before Judge Moskowitz and who have shared their experience with us. The thrust of the "voices" seems to be a repeated pattern of courtroom intimidation - or what might in some cases be called bullying. There are reports of a failure to follow the Rules for Guardian ad litem that is noted by our respondents so frequently that one wonders, does the judge know the rules for Guardians ad litem, or is he outsourcing  a wild form of total, 'ad lib',  judicial discretion to Guardians ad litem? There are reports of a failure to listen to all evidence. There are reports of failure to present a plan for reconciliation when custody sharing is uneven, and failure to respect witnesses and consultants. In our opinion, these comments are a "heads up", a warning to those involved in deciding re-appointment. There seems to be an awful lot of "smoke" coming from this court. The "smoke" cries out for a formal legislative investigation, an audit of this court. At the end of the day, one asks, "Is this the "rule of law"? Is this what Maine citizens want, is this what the legislature approves of?

5.) By your decision about re-appointment, you send a message to the judiciary and to the public. Will it be: we need to look into this further, or will it be judges can do whatever they like. Judicial standards be damned. Public be damned; don't bother your legislator. Mr Tardy and the powers behind him are "lobbying" hard for a "no judicial standard" standard. There are rules, but no enforcement, no supervision. It is all 'ad hoc' decided by a committee of peers, if they get a complaint. There is no functional way by which the public, taxpayers, may judge a judge or get a complaint followed by "corrective action". There is, effectively NO protection for the public.

Admittedly, the choices are stark. There is a questionable vetting process, with questionable vetting leadership, making use of flagrant suppression of any and all opposition. There have been no public challenges to judicial re-appointment in 20 years. To do it with integrity requires that the committee collect its own data, do its own 'vetting, make its own decisions. It is up to you.

Jerome A Collins
Kennebunkport, Maine

MeGAL is working to bring about change regarding our Family Court system and Guardian ad litem role. If you have had issues within the court system we would invite you to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

APPENDIX- VOICE OF THE PEOPLE REGARDING DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE MOSKOWITZ

May 7, 2015 Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz expected to face opposition in reappointment

Many thanks to Judy Harrison (BDN) for the recent article: “Judge who levied gag order expected to face challenge in reappointment”

The article is about Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz and the issues surrounding his court room and the endorsement by Judicial Selection Committee (headed by Joshua Tardy Esq.) to Maine's Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary. May 7, 2015 will see the confirmation hearing of this judge at 2 pm.

It is also the story of one woman's experience in this court. She is not unique in the experience. It is a story of personal pain.

In addition we have a survey asking anyone who is willing to voice an opinion on his reappointment. The public (majority) was left out of the process. A committee consisting of lawyers ( headed by Joshua Tardy Esq. ) conducted a survey which went out to members of Maine’s Bar (minority). The results of our anonymous survey will be presented to the committee on May 7 and posted online. To take the survey click here. Survey will open in a new window/ tab.

Complaining About Judicial Conduct - The Oversight of Judges

We welcome a chance to respond to Divorce Corp's invitation to speak out on the topic, "oversight of judges" or the efficacy of corrective action for allegations of judicial misbehavior. The brief answer to the issue posed by Divorce Corp is, “there is no functional oversight of judges." But it is more complicated than that. Our opinion comes from the perspective of our varied experience in family court reform in Maine. And ... we write with some understanding of (a) Judicial Branch mechanisms for judicial oversight, and (b) the Maine state legislature's take on its "oversight of the judiciary" (which includes judges) as a part of its constitutional powers. Problems with the complaint procedure for judges are a small part part of much larger, more serious systemic problems with the entire family court system. We feel that a dysfunctional complaint system for judges cannot be looked at in isolation, while the rest of the system seems irreparably broken and in a state of near collapse.

There is an historic lag between the Judiciary's self-concept of the nature of judges and that of the present day, informed public. In a pre-tech world, when the personal  attitudes and behaviors of judges were less visible to the public, a large part of a judges' power/mystique rested on his/her distance (invisibility) from public view. It was easier to sell the public an ideal image of core judicial attributes: impartiality, fairness, adroit use of discretion, adherence to the law, etc. However, in a Facebook/twitter/e-mail world, a poorly functioning judge may get continual exposure - warts and all, and this exposure puts a serious dent in the “ideal image" of what a judge should be. Judges can't escape the social media world in which everyone else lives. A bad judicial judgment can go “viral”. Traditional judicial 'gravitas' has been dealt a blow from which it will never recover.

How then to deal with the new reality of "warts and all" judicial images? From what we can see in family courts, the legal establishment is in self-serving denial of the problem. Judicial misconduct or the need for any form of corrective action get handled by a mix of firm denial, legalistic complaint - driven approaches, placement of “buddies” on the complaint committee and by attacks and slurs on those who would complain. It is the problem of self-regulation of any industry. It gets magnified in a very closed, very opaque system in which a great deal of money is involved.

In the midst of this new reality, the Maine Judicial Branch takes little visible administrative or management action in correcting judges. More troubling, if one looks at a recent posting on their web site, they seem to be  overtly calling for greater bench/bar coziness. A recent proposal to  replace, or modify, the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct seems aimed at an even more judge-friendly approach. One telling phrase from the "proposal" jumps out:  "... valuing close and regular contacts between the bench and the bar and in fostering involvement of judges with lawyers and non-lawyers in the larger community where judges live and work." To public readers  this phrase sounds like a call to enhance further the "old boy network".  Especially, if one considers the already “close regular contacts” that go on between the bar and the  bench right up to and including the Supreme Court. The bar has huge, powerful, not always wholesome influence on judges. By using a mix of bullying and "make nice" techniques they manage gain judicial compliance and "correct their actions"- if unfavorable to the BAR. One wonders about the impact of all of this coziness on judicial impartiality and the issue of “undue influence”? The BAR plays a pivotal role in supporting or opposing judges up for re-appointment. One worries that the criteria for these  judicial appointment or re-appointment matters are how lawyer friendly is this judge? This is all done beneath the public radar:

(A) Formal Judicial  oversight mechanisms:
    i) Judicial Responsibility and Disability Committee: Here is the link to this committee:
               
A big problem here is that this committee ignores the glaring fact that 74% of family court cases are ‘Pro se’. A similar 74% would probably be complainants. This web site as “how to” is not “user friendly” for a ‘Pro se’ complainant. It is multi-layered process, each layer must be put to rest before taking the next step. It is a very legalistic process. It requires legal knowledge. And the outcome? From what we can determine from many informants, ZIP!

Using a lawyer may make the legalistics a bit easier to navigate, but it is expensive and a lawyer must always be careful not to be too aggressive in promoting a claim or they may incur charges of disrespecting a judge and face a ‘sua sponte’ complaint from the Overseers of the BAR. It is a fraught situation to say the least, and having a lawyer doesn’t seem to make any difference in obtaining “corrective action”.

    ii) Use of a Supreme Court appeal mechanism to address judicial misbehavior.  In theory this is a possibility. The Supreme Court will hear cases involving claims of abuse of judicial discretion, but the attorney making the claim must walk a careful line. Here is a reproachful quote that may shed light: “[the lawyer] displays what appears to be a general disrespect for the court and for opposing attorney...”. This quote comes from a recent Court’s decision. This remark from the Court resulted in a ‘sua sponte’ complaint from the Overseers of the Bar, a subsidiary of the Court, about the lawyer, who had written a lengthy, unusually detailed, carefully documented brief. It made the case of serious judicial impropriety too perfectly!

(B) More Systemic approaches: Legislative actions of the Judiciary Committee of the Maine legislature.

The passage of legislative bills into law is one systemic strategy that, it is hoped, will correct some family court actions.

We have had some modest success in getting legislation passed in 2013 aimed at Guardian ad litem reform. It was the first rewrite of the GAL rules in many years. But ... Its subsequent implementation in any family court is a question of judicial discretion, judicial enforcement, judges following the law. Most don’t know the law; most ignore it claiming “judicial discretion.

     i) Passing laws or bills aimed at correcting excessive judicial  discretion. This is much needed but a daunting legislative challenge. The challenge comes in the form of the Legislature not being sure of the boundaries of its “oversight of the judiciary” constitutional mandate. But we are working on it.

     ii) Public testimony in opposition to judicial appointment and reappointments when these issues come before the Judiciary Committee of the legislature.

We have only just tried this approach this year with mixed results. On the one hand, testimony from the public about the egregious actions of a judge up for re-appointment raised serious doubts about the judge’s fitness. For the first time ever the re-appointment was not a slam dunk. It got postponed until the following week. In the interim, the divorce industry rallied the troops and conducted an email blitzkrieg on committee members endorsing the judge as a paragon. They also conducted a slur campaign on those who testified. It was an amazing performance from which we learned much. It is all part of the record, and we shall return to try this approach with modifications based on “lessons learned”.

In summary, family court problems are a complex network of interacting systemic problems. Attempts to solve one issue such as judicial misconduct have to be looked at in terms of the total system.

MeGAL is working to reform the Family Court and Guardian ad litem system. If you have had an issue in this area we would ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.

Is the Re-appointment Process of Judges Broken - the Endorsement of the Hon Patricia Worth

On Thursday March 19, 2015 was a moment of truth at the re-appointment hearing for the Hon Patricia Worth. A gang of lawyers, a representative of the bar, a judge and the head of the Judicial re-appointment committee came to give testimony about Judge Worth - which was glowing. Stating that we are lucky in this state to have such a judge, that this judge is caring about the clients before her, helping those who are Prose and involved in the community. If the testimony stopped there (and quite often it does), one would come away from the hearing that there is nothing wrong with our judges in this state. Classic lawyer references of another lawyer

But these fawning views are out of touch with reality in our Family Courts and courts in general.

A unique and quite different "reality check" was offered by several parents and concerned citizens. They did something that was previously unthinkable. These parents and citizens stood before the States Judiciary Committee, a room full of lawyers and judges and told true, personal stories of Judicial abuse which was inflicted and suffered in the Judge Worth Family Court.

These parents and citizens who went before the Judicial Committee were scared, upset, concerned and outnumbered by those testifying from the legal profession. They were in a personally uncomfortable position but had the strength to stand up and let the committee know - their elected Representatives - that there is a problem. A BIG problem that has been festering for years which needs to be addressed.

Their testimony touched all listeners, as they presented the human face of parents ripped away from their children. Stripped financially. Emotions drained by the process that a judge put them through.

Are our Family Courts there to inflict punishment on good parents? In the Worth Court one would think that is the case where good solid parents are prevented from having a relationship with their children. Supervised visits are common, testing, screening and various questionable courses with no end in sight. No goal for outcome - but there is always a carrot being dangled in front of their faces to keep them hoping, keep them hooked. These parents would be better served by Child Protective - because the worse of abusers has a goal. Not in this court.

How many lawyers came out to testify that there might be a problem with this court? By our count not one. You see there is a disincentive to tell the truth when the committee is collecting testimony. As a lawyer working in Hon Patricia Worth's court, if I speak ill of her performance and behavior I put my professional career at risk. I put my family's financial lives at risk. Because now the Judge can pay back my testimonial truth in unfavorable judgements.  Or… engineer a 'Sua sonte' complaint with the Overseers of the Bar against me.

These parents and concerned citizens took a risk. You can also. It you have been hurt by the Family Court process. By a Guardian ad litem. Speak up and let your representatives know what you went through. Rock the boat and educate those around you. If you remain silent - change will never come. You can bet the other side is talking. Support Family Court reform. Contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com - find us on Facebook or call/text 207-370-9801

Provided here is some of the testimony given by concerned citizens and parents:

Dr Jerome A Collins - Audio

Kirk Thomas - Audio

Laurie Ryan - Audio

Christie Griffin - Audio

Christie Starett - Audio

Please note that some of these files are large and may take some time to load in your browser. If you would like a copy of the audio please feel free to download or email us requesting a copy.

Bullying Judges - Affects Lives

Does this title sound like preposterous, science fiction fantasy? The very idea of anyone bullying a stern, sober, black-robed judge, sitting high on the bench of a district court room sounds like one, huge stretch, but consider the dynamics. Judges by and large work continually with the same group of courthouse lawyers, and see them individually on a frequent, regular basis. Any judge is outnumbered by the collectivity of lawyers who regularly use his/her court. Every profession has its grape-vine, its politics, its activists. Add to this scenario the fact that the bar-bench relationship in any district is almost totally below the public radar. No one knows the group dynamics of this very closed legal system. What happens when a strongly political, very vocal, well-placed, local lawyer is unhappy with his/her handling by a judge - or wants special treatment or advantage? Conversations with friends, comparing notes, disenchantment, anger enhancement, and, EUREKA: an out of sight, bar-bench campaign in which any judge will be outnumbered, out-gunned. These putative dynamics are just part of a conceptual skeletal sketch of potential bar-bench dynamics. Obviously, there may be endless variations on the theme, ranging from mild group pressure, to lobbying for different issues, to polite disputes, to warfare and gang mind rape. To campaigns: GET RID OF THIS JUDGE - TOO INDEPENDENT!  or ...KEEP THIS JUDGE, HE/SHE IS OBSEQUIOUS TO OUR INTERESTS!

Lest anyone think we have gone off the deep end and lead a rich fantasy life, we have to admit that we were totally numb to the possibility of the above dynamics, until we heard stories from several "reliable sources" who have witnessed variations on this bar-bench power dynamic. It speaks to many concerns that we have witnessed. Why do local lawyers so frequently win over visiting lawyers? Why do local lawyers rarely get a reprimand from a presiding judge for bad courtroom behavior?  Why do certain, very politically well connected lawyers so frequently get their way in court? We suspect that this bench-bar dynamic may be more pronounced in a small town setting where professional boundaries and friendships may render boundaries more difficult to maintain. It shed light on the 'Pro se' situation too. 'Pro se' versus local lawyer. No contest here for the most part. The dynamic favors lawyers

The bar-bench dynamic may explain some of the weird, off the wall  judicial decisions that we, as consumers experience. Failure to listen to professional consultants, acceptance of fraudulent allegations of abuse that fly in the face of facts, tossing evidence out the window and operating on judicial opinion and using judicial discretion on "steroids". When judges get bullied by members of a mafiaesque bar, justice suffers and consumers are victimized..

It is particularly troubling, therefore, to see calls for a "closer bar-bench" relationship in writings posted on the Judicial Branch web site.  Some would say, if this relationship were any closer,in some cases it would result in mind-body fusion! Where are the degrees of separation? Boundaries? Impartiality? Discretion? One suspects that all of these principles get tested, prodded and (sometimes) hammered.

An audit of courts and 'Pro se' might shed light on some of this. But then one needs to think about how to manage this unhealthy bar-bench system? Further study is obviously needed before prescribing any action. But there are concepts from other professional systems that might be considered. Rotation of judges from court to court to break up entrenched dynamics? R & R for judges stuck in these bar-bench trenches. A support system for judges to discuss local bar pressures and outright bullying. 'Sua sponte' complaints to the overseers of the bar against lawyers who "bully". Encouraging the public to attend bar-bench meetings and keep the process honest. Or ... totally out of the box, what about an Overseers of the 'Pro se', for the 74% majority who use family courts?


Sorry, on that last one, but we couldn't resist!

The current process needs the light of day, the fresh air of public observation and opinion and a deconstruction of these "systems".

MeGAL is a grassroots organization committed to bringing reform to our Family Courts and Guardians ad litem systems. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com of find us on Facebook.